pmb, your analogy is distasteful, but I would agree that Bush utilizes Cheney's insight and expertise extensively - precisely why he was chosen for the job, supporters like to say. Should Kerry get elected, I suppose he could always use Edwards expertise to sue his doctor for malpractice.

"Kerry, like many in the populace, questions Bush's actions in Iraq. That IMO is legit-Saddam posed no "imminent threat" to the US. We went in ill-prepared and lacking the troop numbers to get the job done. That seems like a "colossal error" as does flying to an carrier ship and proclaiming victory. Granted hind sight is 20/20. We're in this Iraq mess for the long haul, Kerry or Bush. The liberation of Iraq from the terror of Saddam is something that needed to be done, but has it done anything to improve our Homeland Security. bin Laden continues to operate in some measure. I don't know if we would have got him if we would have stayed out of Iraq (at least for a while) and continued our focus on al Quaida, but it couldn't have hurt our chances."

Kerry has done more than question the actions of the US in Iraq - he has called it a mistake, an error and a diversion. Disregarding the message that sends to our troops and allies, not to mention our enemies, it seems inconceivable that he would favor the continuation and/or expansion of present Bush policies in Iraq.
Saddam was not about to attack us, nor did he have WMDs apparently, but at what point down the road would both of those circumstances have changed?
Bell rang, gotta go.

Did anyone notice that Kerry said we had the doctrine of preemption during the cold war? What was once a frightening doomsday idea from Bush/Cheney has now been accepted by the opposing candidates. Kerry even went so far as to rewrite history. No Kerry, our doctrine during the cold war was MAD - mutual assured destruction. He's as dumb as Bush but he can speak.

Doctrine may have been a poor choice of words. It is true that our primary doctrine was Mutual Assured Destruction, but you can bet your donkey that we would have considered preemting an impending nuclear strike.

Kerry was simply stating that preemption is NOT a new policy. We've had it for a long time, we just didn't choose to USE it until recently.

The facts are, Saddam was not an imminent threat, nor was he remotely close to becoming one. Cheney is using little tidbits of the recent report to infer that Saddam was holding out against the U.N. resolutions, while using the fuel for food program to buy off foreign countries, with the angle that these countries would eventually drop the sanctions, at which point he would resume production of WMDs.

No time for the link, pmb, but would it have been wild speculation to predict the attacks of 9-11, or the Beslan school massacre?

"The facts are, Saddam was not an imminent threat, nor was he remotely close to becoming one."

That seems like wild speculation rather than facts. He had no compunction when it came to killing, including the massacre of innocent civilians. He had the ability to reinstitute his WMD programs. He had communicated with Al Qaeda over a 10 year period and he sponsored terrorists against Israel. Doesn't seem too far fetched that he would help terrorists attack America, if at all possible.

if it was as obvious as it is now, then surely Edwards and Kerry would have voted no for war authorization by the president. they didn't. they have done nothing to prove to me they are any smarter than Bush.

we had more than enough reason to do something about Al Qaeda and we did nothing

To go back a bit to a frequent discussion point.......After seeing this article on the Washington Times site, it boils my blood to think about this "broader coalition" crap that Kerry continues to spew. He backed the damn war, he knew that there was no chance for support from the UN main powers, and yet he continues to flap his damn gums about this issue solely to get into power. If we are lucky, the media might get off it's a$$es and pay attention to this story.....but I doubt it when it deflates one of Kerry's core positions on Iraq.

PM - Occam's razor doesn't apply here. General Definition:

In its simplest form, Occam's razor states that explanations should never multiply causes without necessity. When two explanations are offered for a phenomenon, the simplest full explanation is preferable.

In the face of historical evidence, how can it be logical to assume that Hussein was of no thread to us, that he had no WMDs, that he had no intention of rebuilding his arsenal, and that he would in no way conspire with terrorists? Occam's says to take the simplist solution, but it doesn't say to disregard evidence and blindly accept the easiest solution. Hussein had gassed his own people w/ WMDs that the UN was fully aware of. We had confirmation that Al Quaida had previously had training camps in Iraq. We now have more information coming out about Iraq's interactions w/ the different UN powers, including the purchasing of arms and weapons components. I believe that we recently found evidence that Hussein had issued directives to support efforts against the US in Somalia (don't ask for a link...wouldn't be able to find it). In the face of all this, it's pretty naive to burry your head in the sand and claim that Hussein wasn't a threat.....Hell, your boy even thought he was a threat that needed to be dealt with quickly.....somewhere back there before he conveniently changed his mind to beat Dean.

As far as your reference to our knowledge of Al Quaida's plans to fly planes into buildings, you need to check your facts. That briefing that Moore latched onto as a symbol of the administration's negligence only mentioned the possibility of hijacking of planes and nothing about using them as weapons. In that context, the briefing discussed something that we had been dealing with for decades....not the acts that we saw on 9/11.

US policy and doctrine has always reserved the right to first use (premptive) of nuclear weapons. This policy was a cornerstone of US war fighting doctrine in Europe where the spectre of Soviet tanks sweeping into Europe through the Fulda Pass was always a nightmare scenario for NATO planners.

_________________________
Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.